Sunday Downtime - All Evolve Media Sites are being migrated to a new data center Sunday Dec 11, 2016. The migration will occur during an 8 AM to 2 PM (Pacific Time) maintenance window. We will have up to 1 hour of downtime for any of our sites.

and the Calder goes to.... [UPDATE: Post #237 Nail Not Nominated]

Anybody know where to find the list of people voting? As in, how do they determine who votes? Sports writers come in all forms, including today's electronic media..

Only members of the Written journalist association members are eligible. So basically newspaper journalists who cover the NHL (yes those journalists might do multiplatform (newspaper, tv, blog, radio, etc). But being a newspaper reporter is the requirement.

If Gallagher wins, its also because he is a Montreal Canadien. More voters from Montreal, more votes for Habs players. That's why Subban will win the Norris, why when the results come in Galchenyuk will have received 4th place votes, why Jose Theodore won the Hart trophy over Jarome Iginla back in the day. The writers voting for these awards are b.s., they are too biased to decide such things.

I know, the Habs players always win all of the trophies due to that Montreal bias. That must explain why our last Calder Trophy winner was Ken Dryden back in 1971-1972. If Subban wins the Norris it will be because he deserves it as much as Suter or Letang. Oh, wait, that Habs bias might kick in. It isn't like we had our last Norris winner back in 1988-1989, right? There is no bias towards Habs players when it comes to winning trophies in the NHL. Go back and look at what Theodore did for the Habs that season. He was as deserving as Iginla would have been when you look at how well they both played and what they helped their teams to achieve.

By the way, Galchenyuk COULD have been selected as one of the nominees for the Calder this year. His numbers were quite impressive when you consider he was just 4 points behind Yakupov while playing 2:14 less per game with less than half the PP time that Yakupov had. Galchenyuk was also a +14. You think if Galchenyuk played another 100 minutes on the ice he might have gotten a few more points? You know, it isn't like Yakupov outscored every other rookie by a significant amount.

Man, you guys don't have to be bitter towards the Habs' players. I said it would be equally acceptable to me if Yakupov would have won and you all act like I said Yakupov sucks. It isn't my fault, nor the Canadiens' fault that Yakupov was left out of the Calder voting. Find someone else to blame.

I know, the Habs players always win all of the trophies due to that Montreal bias. That must explain why our last Calder Trophy winner was Ken Dryden back in 1971-1972. If Subban wins the Norris it will be because he deserves it as much as Suter or Letang. Oh, wait, that Habs bias might kick in. It isn't like we had our last Norris winner back in 1988-1989, right? There is no bias towards Habs players when it comes to winning trophies in the NHL. Go back and look at what Theodore did for the Habs that season. He was as deserving as Iginla would have been when you look at how well they both played and what they helped their teams to achieve.

By the way, Galchenyuk COULD have been selected as one of the nominees for the Calder this year. His numbers were quite impressive when you consider he was just 4 points behind Yakupov while playing 2:14 less per game with less than half the PP time that Yakupov had. Galchenyuk was also a +14. You think if Galchenyuk played another 100 minutes on the ice he might have gotten a few more points? You know, it isn't like Yakupov outscored every other rookie by a significant amount.

Man, you guys don't have to be bitter towards the Habs' players. I said it would be equally acceptable to me if Yakupov would have won and you all act like I said Yakupov sucks. It isn't my fault, nor the Canadiens' fault that Yakupov was left out of the Calder voting. Find someone else to blame.

You're right, both their numbers are quite impressive. Do you know who's numbers are more impressive? Yakupov's.

You're right, both their numbers are quite impressive. Do you know who's numbers are more impressive? Yakupov's.

Only his points total...and not by much. Yeah, a whopping 3 points in 4 more games in one instance, and a whole 4 more points while playing more than 100 more total minutes over the course of a season. So much more impressive...

In any case, I still feel that Yakupov should have received a Calder nomination as one of the most dynamic young players in the NHL this year.

Only his points total...and not by much. Yeah, a whopping 3 points in 4 more games in one instance, and a whole 4 more points while playing more than 100 more total minutes over the course of a season. So much more impressive...

In any case, I still feel that Yakupov should have received a Calder nomination as one of the most dynamic young players in the NHL this year.

Better is better. He beat them in goals, assists, points, time on ice too, and games played. Ottawa only beat Montreal by 3 games, it was really quite close.

Only his points total...and not by much. Yeah, a whopping 3 points in 4 more games in one instance, and a whole 4 more points while playing more than 100 more total minutes over the course of a season. So much more impressive...

In any case, I still feel that Yakupov should have received a Calder nomination as one of the most dynamic young players in the NHL this year.

If you take context into consideration, Yakupov's totals are the most impressive (by far). He started the season with offensively inept linemates. When he was put on lines with solid players, he produced at a fantastic rate. Of course, Galchenyuk didn't get the same PP opportunities that Yakupov did, so he could have improved his totals as well.

If you take context into consideration, Yakupov's totals are the most impressive (by far). He started the season with offensively inept linemates. When he was put on lines with solid players, he produced at a fantastic rate. Of course, Galchenyuk didn't get the same PP opportunities that Yakupov did, so he could have improved his totals as well.

He played with Gagner and Hemsky for the first month. You might have a case for Hemsky who still doesn't understand how the blueline rules work in the category of "inept", but Gagner was a point per game then. But Yak was playing offwing also, a role he clearly didn't feel comfortable in as he looked out of place the entire time.

It was later he was dropped to the 3rd line with the plugs, which resulted in a not at all surprising drought in offense.

He played with Gagner and Hemsky for the first month. You might have a case for Hemsky who still doesn't understand how the blueline rules work in the category of "inept", but Gagner was a point per game then. But Yak was playing offwing also, a role he clearly didn't feel comfortable in as he looked out of place the entire time.

It was later he was dropped to the 3rd line with the plugs, which resulted in a not at all surprising drought in offense.

Gallagher is the obvious choice to me for Calder. Pretty stupid not to have Yak nominated, but it is what it is.

Next season I'd bet that Yak once again leads all these sophomores in goal scoring... and probably not by just a goal or two this time either.

Of course what really matters is the next 5-10 years of production and I've got no problem thinking that we'll be very happy with the numbers Yak puts up... with the Calder nominations nothing but a meaningless and distant memory at that point.

Better is better. He beat them in goals, assists, points, time on ice too, and games played. Ottawa only beat Montreal by 3 games, it was really quite close.

That is WHY he got more points...Lol. Nice dig at Montreal losing to Ottawa. I won't go for the obvious return dig, just too easy and not what I came here for. I had originally come to agree with Oilers fans complaining about Yakupov not being nominated. Who knew that would lead to people trashing my players and team? Lol, what can you do.

Gallagher is the obvious choice to me for Calder. Pretty stupid not to have Yak nominated, but it is what it is.

Next season I'd bet that Yak once again leads all these sophomores in goal scoring... and probably not by just a goal or two this time either.

Of course what really matters is the next 5-10 years of production and I've got no problem thinking that we'll be very happy with the numbers Yak puts up... with the Calder nominations nothing but a meaningless and distant memory at that point.

Thank you for the first sentence. We agree, in regards to your second sentence.

That is WHY he got more points...Lol. Nice dig at Montreal losing to Ottawa. I won't go for the obvious return dig, just too easy and not what I came here for. I had originally come to agree with Oilers fans complaining about Yakupov not being nominated. Who knew that would lead to people trashing my players and team? Lol, what can you do.

So what you're saying is because Yakupov earned and received more ice time this is somehow a detriment to his case? In what world does that even make any sense.

Maybe that other guy didn't get enough ice time because he wasn't good enough to receive it? Or are you going to say he only got more ice time because the Oilers were crappy? Laughable.

Only his points total...and not by much. Yeah, a whopping 3 points in 4 more games in one instance, and a whole 4 more points while playing more than 100 more total minutes over the course of a season. So much more impressive...

Ironically, that is exactly the opposite of the "reason" the writers gave for not giving it to RNH last year - somehow they felt that Landeskog having played 20 more games to get the same amount of points somehow made him better. I remember hearing Damien Cox (idiot) start trumpeting that - Yes RNH had as many points, but he didn't play as many games, so to me that makes Landeskog more worthy....

The rookie scoring leader should at the very least have been a finalist as he has been the last 63 years. As for who should win the Calder, I'm biased and think it should have been Yakupov, but would have understood Gallagher, Huberdeau, or Brodin. But last year? RNH tied for the points lead with almost 20 less GP? It's a travesty that he didn't win last year.

So what you're saying is because Yakupov earned and received more ice time this is somehow a detriment to his case? In what world does that even make any sense.

Maybe that other guy didn't get enough ice time because he wasn't good enough to receive it? Or are you going to say he only got more ice time because the Oilers were crappy? Laughable.

And grow a thicker skin. You're in Oil country.

Yakupov didn't necessarily "earn" more time than Gallagher or Galchenyuk. Different coaches, different philosophies towards the development of young players. I didn't say having more ice time or more games played was a detriment to Yakupov's case, either. I said that Yakupov's points total was not that far off from either Gallagher's or Galchenyuk's and that Yakupov had more ice time and games played which quite likely accounts for the whole 3 or 4 point difference. I also never said the Oilers were "crappy", just that there is an argument to be made for Gallagher winning the Calder. Try to follow the thread, kid.

My skin is plenty thick, by the way. Comes with old age. I am also NOT in "Oil Country" (wow, hearing it like that makes me think of some redneck hillbillies I knew in Kentucky), I am typing away on my keyboard in good old Montreal...

Ironically, that is exactly the opposite of the "reason" the writers gave for not giving it to RNH last year - somehow they felt that Landeskog having played 20 more games to get the same amount of points somehow made him better. I remember hearing Damien Cox (idiot) start trumpeting that - Yes RNH had as many points, but he didn't play as many games, so to me that makes Landeskog more worthy....

The rookie scoring leader should at the very least have been a finalist as he has been the last 63 years. As for who should win the Calder, I'm biased and think it should have been Yakupov, but would have understood Gallagher, Huberdeau, or Brodin. But last year? RNH tied for the points lead with almost 20 less GP? It's a travesty that he didn't win last year.

Yup, last year was a complete screw job. It didn't make sense. Even though Landeskog played 20 more games they ended up with the same point totals! It isn't even like Landeskog scored 3 or 4 more points while playing those 20 extra games. It made no sense. It was like they were trying to say durability was a factor, but that has never been a consideration in the past. It was a travesty...

Again, we agree. Yakupov should have been a finalist for the Calder. Thanks for understanding my point that if Gallagher wins he had as much of a case as Yakupov, though. Muchly appreciated!

Yup, last year was a complete screw job. It didn't make sense. Even though Landeskog played 20 more games they ended up with the same point totals! It isn't even like Landeskog scored 3 or 4 more points while playing those 20 extra games. It made no sense. It was like they were trying to say durability was a factor, but that has never been a consideration in the past. It was a travesty...

Again, we agree. Yakupov should have been a finalist for the Calder. Thanks for understanding my point that if Gallagher wins he had as much of a case as Yakupov, though. Muchly appreciated!

You don't really get it do you? Since when is "being Healthy" a "skill".

Also, if you have the SAME POINTS in 20 LESS GAMES, who scored MORE OFTEN, ie Points Per Game, not really complicated there chief.

That is WHY he got more points...Lol. Nice dig at Montreal losing to Ottawa. I won't go for the obvious return dig, just too easy and not what I came here for. I had originally come to agree with Oilers fans complaining about Yakupov not being nominated. Who knew that would lead to people trashing my players and team? Lol, what can you do.

I understand your point... but you must realize you are talking to the fanbase who got screwed/no love for the same argument last year, when Nuge scored at a much, much higher rate than Landeskog and still lost.... or the year before when Hall scored at a higher rate than Seguin... and still lost.

Three #1 overalls, each one with arguably the best offensive seasons and not a single one is the ROY? When was the last time the leading ppg scoring rookies did not win the calder three years running? I'll bet it has never happened.

Anyway... none of this is to discredit your arguments or Gallagher's season (at least not from my perspective), but you've come into the wasps nest with a group of fans that have had nothing to cheer for for several years other than the hope of great rookie season (check) acknowledged with some awards (no check).

Yup, last year was a complete screw job. It didn't make sense. Even though Landeskog played 20 more games they ended up with the same point totals! It isn't even like Landeskog scored 3 or 4 more points while playing those 20 extra games. It made no sense. It was like they were trying to say durability was a factor, but that has never been a consideration in the past. It was a travesty...

Again, we agree. Yakupov should have been a finalist for the Calder. Thanks for understanding my point that if Gallagher wins he had as much of a case as Yakupov, though. Muchly appreciated!

I see Hoogar was ahead of me on this point... should have read to the bottom.

Still, Being a Hab and Short shouldn't make one overly qualified for the ROY.

Reading comprehension is a skill. Keep that in mind.

Being a Hab, and short, and scoring at a very good clip (3 less points in 4 less games!), and helping one's team to the 2nd position in the entire Eastern Conference one year after being 3rd last in the entire NHL, DOES make one QUALIFIED for the ROY. ONLY scoring more points while playing more games and more minutes DOES NOT qualify one for ROY. There is a skill that might one day help you understand that.

Man, I wish Yakupov would have been nominated. I can do nothing to get Yakupov nominated. It is not Gallagher's fault, my fault, or the Habs' fault that Yakupov was not nominated. Aim your vitriol where it deserves to go, kid. Blame the right people, not the wrong ones.

Man, I don't know how many times I have to say it. It really isn't Gallagher's or Montreal's fault that Yakupov wasn't selected. I simply came on here to offer my support for Yakupov and sympathies that he was snubbed. What happens? A crapstorm. Oy, Vey! At least you and Hoogar get what I am saying.

Yeesh. Even if Yakupov were selected, I would want Gallagher to win, but if Yakupov would have won I wouldn't have been too upset about it because he had a great season and will be a great player for years to come. If wanting Gallagher makes me a homer, then I guess I am a homer. Same as every Oilers guy who wants the same for Yakupov.

In any case, thanks for understanding what I was saying. Good luck, and may we meet in the Stanley Cup Finals next season (with the Habs winning in 7, of course...)

Only members of the Written journalist association members are eligible. So basically newspaper journalists who cover the NHL (yes those journalists might do multiplatform (newspaper, tv, blog, radio, etc). But being a newspaper reporter is the requirement.

They've made a few exceptions to the rule. Greg wyshinsky and bob mckenzie got votes this year as E-writers.

Man, I don't know how many times I have to say it. It really isn't Gallagher's or Montreal's fault that Yakupov wasn't selected. I simply came on here to offer my support for Yakupov and sympathies that he was snubbed. What happens? A crapstorm. Oy, Vey! At least you and Hoogar get what I am saying.

Yeesh. Even if Yakupov were selected, I would want Gallagher to win, but if Yakupov would have won I wouldn't have been too upset about it because he had a great season and will be a great player for years to come. If wanting Gallagher makes me a homer, then I guess I am a homer. Same as every Oilers guy who wants the same for Yakupov.

In any case, thanks for understanding what I was saying. Good luck, and may we meet in the Stanley Cup Finals next season (with the Habs winning in 7, of course...)